And this coming from you is mighty hilarious. You were preaching about how Nadal never played better all throughout last year when anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together could obviously see otherwise.

Click to expand...

Of course, because making 3 slam finals a year and 7 finals in a row is below norm for Nadal and such a clear sign of massive decline, right?

He started a very slow decline in 2007, but was certainly healthy enough to compete in 2008. The mono hit him hard in 2008 which disrupted his season, and 2009 was the first one where he was really healthy again. After that, he has never been the same Federer. His movement, his firepower, and overall game has taken a pretty big step backwards overall. He wins mostly on cunning, guile, and superior tactics.

You don't go and have record years after "declining." Period. It doesn't happen. You can try and keep it up, but you and namelessone among various other Nadal fans have constantly made a complete fool out of yourselves. Not even Benhur who adamantly defends Nadal fans would ever agree with your ridiculous assertion. Nadal hasn't declined one bit until maybevery recently.

Click to expand...

Do you think Nadal is as fast and agile as he was in 2008 in 2009? How about now? For you to say that Nadal hasn't declined until "very recently" is absurd. He has been in decline for the past 3 years now.

No foolish *******s on here,though. Those *******s who insist that their guy was in decline from 2007-now,even while he was still racking up titles,and winning 8 more slams in the process. Nothing more foolish than that.

It is true that Fed started losing to guys he normally wouldn't in 2007, like Canas twice, Volandri, Nalbandian played two great matches to beat, but he doesn't count because Fed's lost to Nalbandian before. His other somewhat surprise loss was to Gonzalez, but his decline didn't start in 2007, it started with the mono he got in 2008 I would say.

Click to expand...

Federer in 2007 was in his prime. I was just saying Federer in 2005 was better than Federer in 2007, despite having won 1 Grand Slam less.

and endless Federer bashing hate threads twisting his words and actions into those of pure malevolence.

Click to expand...

Indeed, Nadal fans here have over the years shown tendency to overanalyze Fed's interviews/statements. Not to mention the weak era threads, Mirka bashing, even insulting his two daughters, horrible stuff.

I am sick of people undermining the achievements of players who excel off of clay. It's as if only slow clay courts count as genuine tennis surfaces in their minds.

Click to expand...

Oh definitely, poor indoor specialist like that Federer guy can't catch a break around here, haven't you heard? The only reason he won Wimbledon was because of the roof, apparently it helped the aggressive first strike player which looking at Wimbledon tradition is really a travesty, I hope they ban the roof next year and slow down the courts/balls some more so we can see some genuine Spartan tennis with atleast 20 breaks of serve.

I just wish there were a few diehard Federer fans to counterbalance the huge Nadal bias here.

Click to expand...

There are many Fed fans around here actually, one of the main reasons this place seems to be crawling with Nadal fans is because they're very vocal and a number of them have a dozen or so accounts (Bullzie and LOLville come to mind immediately, of course there's also the Dork Knight) while Fed fans usually stick to one account (crazy I know).

You have no shame, but that is alright. I understand that you must cling to anything you can get.

Let's face it, everyone. Nadal is faster than he ever was. Federer is playing ten times better than he did when he was dominating everyone. Both players have improved to such an extent that they wouldn't lose a single game to their old selves in their best statistical seasons.

We could also accept the truth and realize that those two may be the best who have ever lived. No one will win many slams with the two of them playing at their best.

That includes Sampras, 90's clay.

Click to expand...

What is this nonsense you just posted... :shock: Fed is playing 10 times better then he did when he was dominating everyone in 2005 and 2006? Nadal is faster now then he ever was? Can Nadal even RUN right now? He hasn't played a match in damn near 5-6 months.

ROFL.. nadal the best there ever was.. . Hes the best clay court player ever. But far from the best ever in general (at least at this point)

What is this nonsense you just posted... :shock: Fed is playing 10 times better then he did when he was dominating everyone in 2005 and 2006? Nadal is faster now then he ever was? Can Nadal even RUN right now? He hasn't played a match in damn near 5-6 months.

federer was playing by some distance better at the AO in 2005 than he was in the SF/F of the USO in 2005 ....

the SF vs safin was easily the best ever that he's played and still lost .... the way federer/safin were painting the lines, you are bound to have some unforced errors .... that was one match which showcases almost the whole of federer's arsenal ..and I've watched the whole match atleast 3-4 times ...

the only match which comes remotely close in which he played well and still lost is the rome 2006 final vs nadal ....

Click to expand...

Well said! It's the only match that I recall from his prime that I didn't feel upset about him losing.

When Fed was defending his best surface - ala Wimbledon and the US Open - he was at another level obviously than he is now. Nadal didn't even start doing well at HC slams until the late 00's right?

I think for sure Nadal is a better all around player now than 6 years ago.

Click to expand...

He may be a more well-rounded player now but I still contend he was a better hard court player (despite not having won a hardcourt GS) back in 2005/2006. Barring the serve, his movement, speed and shot making were a lot more ferocious back then, belieing the "baby Rafa" myth trolls like to perpetuate. Not only were the courts faster, but the hard-court competition was also a lot better at that time.

Fed was actually 8-1 against Berdych until 2010 but of course we have people now claiming Berdych was always a nightmare match-up for Fed and similar nonsense.

Obviously, Fed couln't possibly be past his prime in 2010, no, his prime has to last 8+ years while fragile as flower Rafa overall had about a year and a change of prime/peak tennis, what a warrior.

Click to expand...

LOL well the ****s do the same but in even more extreme reverse. Nadal was supposably in his prime way back in 2005 even though he was losing 3rd or 4th round of most non clay slams, wouldnt make a hard court slam semi until 2008, and was losing every non clay to any decent flat ball hitter Berdych, Blake, Youhzny, anyone who played that way and wasnt a crap pro basically. Yet he is still at his peak today supposably, and will remain so for years to come, especialy if Djokovic starts beating him regularly again. Meanwhile Federer was only in his prime from 2004-2007, immediately being a rickety old man at the generic age of 26 way past his prime once Nadal and Djokovic begin beating him in 2008. However if you remind of the Kuerten Roland Garros match, and the Wimbledon match vs Nadal in 2007 (despite Federer winning a match that proves Nadal can bully and completely dominate prime Federer from his domain, the baseline, on a grass court) and his prime is suddenly cut down to 2005 and 2006, basically a 1 and half or 2 year prime now. All this said and ****s trying laud Federer on this forum as having the best longevity of any player in history.

He may be a more well-rounded player now but I still contend he was a better hard court player (despite not having won a hardcourt GS) back in 2005/2006. Barring the serve, his movement, speed and shot making were a lot more ferocious back then, belieing the "baby Rafa" myth trolls like to perpetuate. Not only were the courts faster, but the hard-court competition was also a lot better at that time.

Click to expand...

I didn't watch tennis back in 05/06 so I can't really speak on it from a yearly perspective but from the youtube matches I have seen I understand where you are coming from. I think most players 20-25 are playing their best tennis, especially from that era (Roddick 02-06, Hewitt 00-04).

LOL well the ****s do the same but in even more extreme reverse. Nadal was supposably in his prime way back in 2005 even though he was losing 3rd or 4th round of most non clay slams, wouldnt make a hard court slam semi until 2008, and was losing every non clay to any decent flat ball hitter Berdych, Blake, Youhzny, anyone who played that way and wasnt a crap pro basically. Yet he is still at his peak today supposably, and will remain so for years to come, especialy if Djokovic starts beating him regularly again. Meanwhile Federer was only in his prime from 2004-2007, immediately being a rickety old man at the generic age of 26 way past his prime once Nadal and Djokovic begin beating him in 2008. However if you remind of the Kuerten Roland Garros match, and the Wimbledon match vs Nadal in 2007 (despite Federer winning a match that proves Nadal can bully and completely dominate prime Federer from his domain, the baseline, on a grass court) and his prime is suddenly cut down to 2005 and 2006, basically a 1 and half or 2 year prime now. All this said and ****s trying laud Federer on this forum as having the best longevity of any player in history.

Click to expand...

I have said it before. Unless you have had a serious case of Mono you can't speak on it - you are never the same again. I was out of commission for a year, lost weight, and my immune system has been f*cked ever since. Soderling is essentially finished completely from the same thing. The fact that Fed came back and won a slam that year is a testament to his ability, just like Nadal coming back after his knees falling apart. 08 Wimbledon was not Federer's greatest level I think that is pretty obvious.

He may be a more well-rounded player now but I still contend he was a better hard court player (despite not having won a hardcourt GS) back in 2005/2006. Barring the serve, his movement, speed and shot making were a lot more ferocious back then, belieing the "baby Rafa" myth trolls like to perpetuate. Not only were the courts faster, but the hard-court competition was also a lot better at that time.

Click to expand...

You can keep repeating this nonsense if you like,but it certainly doesn't make it true.

His hard court prime was definitely 2008-current. The idea his best hard court tennis was in 2005 is something only a laughable and braindead troll would try and argue. Of course he isnt unbeatable on hard courts even in his hard court prime, nobody said he was.

LOL well the ****s do the same but in even more extreme reverse. Nadal was supposably in his prime way back in 2005 even though he was losing 3rd or 4th round of most non clay slams, wouldnt make a hard court slam semi until 2008, and was losing every non clay to any decent flat ball hitter Berdych, Blake, Youhzny, anyone who played that way and wasnt a crap pro basically. Yet he is still at his peak today supposably, and will remain so for years to come, especialy if Djokovic starts beating him regularly again. Meanwhile Federer was only in his prime from 2004-2007, immediately being a rickety old man at the generic age of 26 way past his prime once Nadal and Djokovic begin beating him in 2008. However if you remind of the Kuerten Roland Garros match, and the Wimbledon match vs Nadal in 2007 (despite Federer winning a match that proves Nadal can bully and completely dominate prime Federer from his domain, the baseline, on a grass court) and his prime is suddenly cut down to 2005 and 2006, basically a 1 and half or 2 year prime now. All this said and ****s trying laud Federer on this forum as having the best longevity of any player in history.

Click to expand...

well nadal fans/fed haters always laughed at 2004-2007 being a very small period but then call Nadal's prime 4 months in 2008, and about the same in 2010. less than a year in total, and his hardcourt prime was only in that 2010 4 month period. Nadal though is a more upand down player so it is harder to say his prime and peak.

What I would say is as he has been pretty much unbeatable from 2005 Nadal was pretty much in his prime on clay from 2005 to now, because although he didn't have a great 2009 clay season, and 2011 was ropey too, he still mostly won, so it's hard to say he was not in his prime. Mainly he's so good on clay that prime or non prime doesn't even really enter it until he has 2 terrible clay season back to back. Generally though I'd say his playing level on clay was best from 2006-2008. But the other years are then like Fed's 2007 season where he still is prime but not quite as high as the other years. On grass his prime came a bit later, 2007 - whenever (was last year a slight blip? who knows) on hardcourt I'd say from 2009 - 2012.

For Federer it's generally 2004 - 2007, though 2007 showed a definite tail off in form, so I don't feel bad that Nadal took Federer to a 5th set at Wimbledon. With the loss to Guga, I don't think fed started to hit his clay prime til 2005 (2005-2009 possibly - 2009 wasn't a great RG and 2008 was terrible but overall he still played fairly good on clay those years) and Guga is a great clay player, not a mug. So again that's not a loss i feel the need to defend.

So? Fed has declined massively since then. That's what I'm saying. Slow courts have prolonged Fed's time at the top, because his shotmaking can make up for his decline in movement since this video.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry but this statement doesn't make any sense. The slower the surface, the more movement/stamina/physical fitness oriented the tennis becomes.
It is on FASTER surfaces that shotmaking can make up for decline in movement...not on slow surfaces.
I know this from personal experience as well as watching others play...so the bolded part seems very counter intuitive to me.

I'm sorry but this statement doesn't make any sense. The slower the surface, the more movement/stamina/physical fitness oriented the tennis becomes.
It is on FASTER surfaces that shotmaking can make up for decline in movement...not on slow surfaces.
I know this from personal experience as well as watching others play...so the bolded part seems very counter intuitive to me.

Click to expand...

I certainly agree that Joeri's statement is basically incorrect. I'm sure all those who have played a considerable amount of tennis will disagree with it as well.

I'm sorry but this statement doesn't make any sense. The slower the surface, the more movement/stamina/physical fitness oriented the tennis becomes.
It is on FASTER surfaces that shotmaking can make up for decline in movement...not on slow surfaces.
I know this from personal experience as well as watching others play...so the bolded part seems very counter intuitive to me.

Click to expand...

Doesn't it depend on your comparative advantage vs the opponent? So against a guy like berdych/delpo/Tsonga the slower surfaces help you get to their bigger shots as you have more time than you would on a faster surface. Feds comparative advantage is not just his offensive skills but also his defense. However vs Nadal/djoko/Murray where Feds comparative advantage is purely offensive skills, slower surfaces hurt him.

Doesn't it depend on your comparative advantage vs the opponent? So against a guy like berdych/delpo/Tsonga the slower surfaces help you get to their bigger shots as you have more time than you would on a faster surface. Feds comparative advantage is not just his offensive skills but also his defense. However vs Nadal/djoko/Murray where Feds comparative advantage is purely offensive skills, slower surfaces hurt him.

Click to expand...

Yeah but then it would have a disadvantage to most Pros except Berdych/Delpo/Tsonga not just Federer. On top of that all the 3 arent that consistent!

I'm sorry but this statement doesn't make any sense. The slower the surface, the more movement/stamina/physical fitness oriented the tennis becomes.
It is on FASTER surfaces that shotmaking can make up for decline in movement...not on slow surfaces.
I know this from personal experience as well as watching others play...so the bolded part seems very counter intuitive to me.

Click to expand...

This is true, but depends on who you are playing. Against big power players like Berdych, Tsonga etc it hurts him now. Since he can no longer track down their shots, does not return as well and is not es explosive. It often comes down to breakers. You are right though it hurts him more in general.

The 2005 Australian Open was a great match. Very high quality. Safin was really a complete player back then. Even so Federer should have probably won the match in 4 sets and was very unlucky not to. The deciding factor in the fifth set was fitness. Federer did not have the legs in the fifth or else it would have been closer.

Watch a Federer vs Gonzalez match or against Ancic at Wimbledon to see just how much his speed has deteriorated. He is no where near as quick as he once was.

LOL well the ****s do the same but in even more extreme reverse. Nadal was supposably in his prime way back in 2005 even though he was losing 3rd or 4th round of most non clay slams, wouldnt make a hard court slam semi until 2008, and was losing every non clay to any decent flat ball hitter Berdych, Blake, Youhzny, anyone who played that way and wasnt a crap pro basically. Yet he is still at his peak today supposably, and will remain so for years to come, especialy if Djokovic starts beating him regularly again.

Click to expand...

Don't see how that is more extreme reverse, say Fed fans claim Nadal's prime started in 2005 and is still lasting, Nadal fans claim Fed's prime started and is still lasting to this day.

However if you remind of the Kuerten Roland Garros match, and the Wimbledon match vs Nadal in 2007 (despite Federer winning a match that proves Nadal can bully and completely dominate prime Federer from his domain, the baseline, on a grass court) and his prime is suddenly cut down to 2005 and 2006, basically a 1 and half or 2 year prime now.

Click to expand...

Yes, but 2 year prime >>> 4 months of 2008, 6 months of 2010 and 1 month of 2009 of prime tennis.

I can't accept a 1 and a half year prime regarding Fed because I've never seen a Fed fan claim Fed wasn't in his prime in both 2005 and 2006.